Re: The "other game thread"

[Chase - Esou]

SC2's story has NOTHING on SC + BW.

[Coppersocket]

Agreed, SC2's story is complete and utter shite compared to the six episodes in the original game.

[Vaell]

Blizzard have thrown away decent storytelling for more money. Starcraft merged the stories so fluently; Kerrigan gets taken, you think she is dead, you start playing the Zerg campaign and suddenly you have a chrysalis (shot in the dark spelling) which eventually hatches into her!

HotS is so predictably boring and short. I completed it in 8 hours after doing all bonus objectives and taking my time in every mission I was allowed to.

It's so simple to make a standard build a base, attack a base, wipe them out and win map but they wanted to make every bloody mission thematic.

[Lini]

Blizzard have thrown away decent storytelling for more money. Starcraft merged the stories so fluently; Kerrigan gets taken, you think she is dead, you start playing the Zerg campaign and suddenly you have a chrysalis (shot in the dark spelling) which eventually hatches into her!

HotS is so predictably boring and short. I completed it in 8 hours after doing all bonus objectives and taking my time in every mission I was allowed to.

It's so simple to make a standard build a base, attack a base, wipe them out and win map but they wanted to make every bloody mission thematic.

If I wanted a simple buid base, attack a base, wipe out enemy map I'd play a skirmish against the AI. It's better the single player campaign has something going for it that makes it different from a series of AI matches.

[Vaell]

Blizzard have thrown away decent storytelling for more money. Starcraft merged the stories so fluently; Kerrigan gets taken, you think she is dead, you start playing the Zerg campaign and suddenly you have a chrysalis (shot in the dark spelling) which eventually hatches into her!

HotS is so predictably boring and short. I completed it in 8 hours after doing all bonus objectives and taking my time in every mission I was allowed to.

It's so simple to make a standard build a base, attack a base, wipe them out and win map but they wanted to make every bloody mission thematic.

If I wanted a simple buid base, attack a base, wipe out enemy map I'd play a skirmish against the AI. It's better the single player campaign has something going for it that makes it different from a series of AI matches.

Oh yeah, it is really better that they just take stuff from their earlier games and recreate it, e.g. get more eggs before the other person does, remind you of the Culling of Strat? There are a few more examples.

For a game that was two years in the works, it wasn't worth it. I'm not sure if you played Starcraft 1 but 60% of the missions were "series of AI matches" with voice overs used for anything eventful that happened during it and it was renowned as one of the greatest Strategy games ever made. Age of Empires, Warcraft 3, Red Alert etc. All of them merge thematic missions with general base building and striking at the enemy. If you'd really prefer an eight hour campaign where no mission takes more than 30 minutes to complete over one that actually makes you feel like you're part of the fucking swarm (I think there was only two missions that could be credible of the term 'swarm') then I'd hate to have your mindset when it comes to strategy games.

Just to generalise my opinions into sections:

Every mission had a theme
This wasn't necessary. This links in with the next point and I have covered a lot of it but they reused old formats which was lacked originality. There was only one mission that was truly awesome for building a theme, anyone who has played the game can probably guess, the others were stuff like 'Tug of War' etc.

Every mission had a time limit
Putting a time limit onto near enough every mission doesn't allow you to really appreciate the brilliance of each map. It makes you rush certain parts which could otherwise be so fruitful if they added in easter eggs. This is coming from someone who is a moderate completionist. I did every bonus mission I could and explored every inch of the map to find any possible secrets. There wasn't nearly enough for your usual Blizzard game! The average mission in the original starcraft took about 40 mins as a standard. In this one, it took 25 minutes, if you did everything. There were 20 actual missions but only five different planets.

Storytelling
This was shite. The origins of the Zerg was the only interesting bit of the entire story. The rest was incredibly predictable and it pretty much renounced everything in the first game.

Mid-mission brief
Wings of Liberty nailed this. It is what gave me hope for HotS and I knew it wouldn't be as good due to the zerg lacking as many interesting characters. They did produce some decent characters but not enough to do during this time. No system similar to mercenaries, there could have been an extra section, etc. It became a little repetative because every conversation pretty much, in a nutshell was: "Mengsk!" "I <3 Jim" "Swarm is cool, yeah?"

Kerrigan abilities
Simply, not enough imo.

Online features
They did not add enough for a two year gap!

Verdict
Though it was great fun and I'd say I got my money's worth simply because it's more Starcraft and I'm a bit of a fanboy, but the game had a lot of flaws and was not worth the build up. I can already predict 90% of the third game which is a shame, if the storytelling was improved and some of the maps, I would have been giving this game my rock, hard dick.

[Lini]

For a game that was two years in the works, it wasn't worth it. I'm not sure if you played Starcraft 1 but 60% of the missions were "series of AI matches" with voice overs used for anything eventful that happened during it and it was renowned as one of the greatest Strategy games ever made. Age of Empires, Warcraft 3, Red Alert etc. All of them merge thematic missions with general base building and striking at the enemy. If you'd really prefer an eight hour campaign where no mission takes more than 30 minutes to complete over one that actually makes you feel like you're part of the fucking swarm (I think there was only two missions that could be credible of the term 'swarm') then I'd hate to have your mindset when it comes to strategy games.

I played the original Starcraft the year it was released and yes, most of the missions in that game were bog standard skirmish matches where the only variable was how big the enemy base was and how many of them there were. You'd build up your base and your defenses, weather the small attacks the AI would send your way to keep you busy and then finally smash the opposion with your army once you were prepared. Repeat ad nauseatum.
Did I enjoy it? Very much so. Were the missions interesting mechanics-wise? No.
Also, I'm fairly sure Starcraft is renowned as one of the greatest RTS games ever because of its multiplayer, not its singleplayer experience.

Though it was great fun and I'd say I got my money's worth simply because it's more Starcraft and I'm a bit of a fanboy, but the game had a lot of flaws and was not worth the build up. I can already predict 90% of the third game which is a shame, if the storytelling was improved and some of the maps, I would have been giving this game my rock, hard dick.

"Great fun", "got my money's worth", "not worth the build up". So, which one is it?
Heart of the Swarm is an EXPANSION that was made in 2-3 years. I know expansion packs aren't a thing that exist in modern gaming world since new content is always either DLC or made into a sequel and sold for full price but I still wouldn't judge the merits of HotS on the assumption that it's a new game. It's not even standalone and requires WoL to work.

[Muzjhath]

Starcraft no Brood War is known for being famously unballanced and mostly broken. It didn't becaome really popular as a multiplayer game until the expansion.

Also, most of the HOTS development has been on the multiplayer. Since that's the biggest selling point.

[Vaell]

Heart of the Swarm is not an expansion pack. It's a full priced game. It should be treated as such.

[Muzjhath]

Personally, as long as the Multiplayer is good. I care exactly dick for the SP campaign. I'll play it once on Hard or brutal. That's it.
After that I'll revel in the fact that there now is unranked play so you can practice outside of ladder.

[Lini]

Heart of the Swarm is not an expansion pack. It's a full priced game. It should be treated as such.

Wings of Liberty: 60€ (Standalone game)
Heart of the Swarm: 40€ (Expansion)
Mists of Pandaria: 40€ (Expansion)

It's priced as an expansion. Modern day game pricing just has been inflated through the roof.

[Chase - Esou]

It's got to take the price for most shit "digital deluxe" version ever proposed, too. 15 euro extra for that shit. I don't even want to believe that people paid for that.

[Vaell]

Heart of the Swarm is not an expansion pack. It's a full priced game. It should be treated as such.

Wings of Liberty: 60€ (Standalone game)
Heart of the Swarm: 40€ (Expansion)
Mists of Pandaria: 40€ (Expansion)

It's priced as an expansion. Modern day game pricing just has been inflated through the roof.

DLCs are technically expansions. Look at Skyrim, they added as many hours of single player for a much lower price. Games are not inflated at all! In fact, this is the all time low thanks to online sales such as Steam. Blizzard are just a horrible company when it comes to charging customers.

[Lini]

Heart of the Swarm is not an expansion pack. It's a full priced game. It should be treated as such.

Wings of Liberty: 60€ (Standalone game)
Heart of the Swarm: 40€ (Expansion)
Mists of Pandaria: 40€ (Expansion)

It's priced as an expansion. Modern day game pricing just has been inflated through the roof.

DLCs are technically expansions. Look at Skyrim, they added as many hours of single player for a much lower price. Games are not inflated at all! In fact, this is the all time low thanks to online sales such as Steam. Blizzard are just a horrible company when it comes to charging customers.

I'm fairly sure the first two wow expansions were in the 20-30€ price range as well so it's a rather recent change in Blizz' pricing policy.
*coughActivision-Blizzardcough*

[Vaell]

They still charge a monthly fee with incredible amounts of "small" payments in the game. Look at how much you've spent on WoW along over the years!

[Raenmar]

Games are not inflated at all! In fact, this is the all time low thanks to online sales such as Steam.

That was the case, until big publishers tried to get involved. Look at Origin: games, regardless of how old they are, are never reduced in price. And the download copy is sold for as much as a physical copy.

[Kittrina]

So, I heard they were making new Thief game. YAY. One of my fondest gaming memories, up there with Baldur's gate and Planescape, SURELY THEY CAN'T MESS THIS UP....

He may look like the bass player from a Bauhaus cover band, but Eidos says it's actually toned down the "goth" look of the redesigned Garrett.

Like it or not, a new Thief means a new Garrett, although game director Nicolas Cantin said that while Eidos had "carte blanche" on the design, the team wanted to keep Garrett's "main DNA" because it works pretty well as-is. But change is inevitable, and the anti-hero of the upcoming series reboot will not be quite as we remember him.

"We wanted to bring him more for the modern audience of today's console market," Cantin said. "He's now in the game doing more action moves and that's how we wanted the costume and the suit to reflect that."

"Time has moved on," Narrative Director Steve Gallagher added. "We're not still in 1998."

AND this is the 'toned down' new Garrett:

Spoiler:

(And for reference, the old Garrett, who was a average-slightly ugly-if-anything guy in shabby armour)

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I hate it.
Also whoever looks at Thief as a series and decides it needs to be 'more actiony' should not be working on Thief games. If you got into a direct fight you were doing it wrong.

[Coppersocket]

Did you really expect anything else tho? It's gonna be another Ass creed, which means easy-mode all the way through with just the emphasis on feeling "bad ass". They'll start throwing out the E word to describe the game very soon.

Reboots these days are all shit.

[Lini]

Also whoever looks at Thief as a series and decides it needs to be 'more actiony' should not be working on Thief games.

I understood "action moves" as acrobatics and such and not combat, considering how in every interview etc I've read so far they've stressed that combat is the last resort.
Also, this is being made by Eidos Montreal. Their previous game was Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Take that as you will.

[Lexgrad]

So, I heard they were making new Thief game. YAY. One of my fondest gaming memories, up there with Baldur's gate and Planescape, SURELY THEY CAN'T MESS THIS UP....

He may look like the bass player from a Bauhaus cover band, but Eidos says it's actually toned down the "goth" look of the redesigned Garrett.

Like it or not, a new Thief means a new Garrett, although game director Nicolas Cantin said that while Eidos had "carte blanche" on the design, the team wanted to keep Garrett's "main DNA" because it works pretty well as-is. But change is inevitable, and the anti-hero of the upcoming series reboot will not be quite as we remember him.

"We wanted to bring him more for the modern audience of today's console market," Cantin said. "He's now in the game doing more action moves and that's how we wanted the costume and the suit to reflect that."

"Time has moved on," Narrative Director Steve Gallagher added. "We're not still in 1998."

AND this is the 'toned down' new Garrett:

Spoiler:

(And for reference, the old Garrett, who was a average-slightly ugly-if-anything guy in shabby armour)

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I hate it.
Also whoever looks at Thief as a series and decides it needs to be 'more actiony' should not be working on Thief games. If you got into a direct fight you were doing it wrong.

But... its like tomb raider without the boobs or Duke nukem without the shades, cigar and casual sexism! Garrett isnt a free running karate goth, he is a snicky wimpy thief who hid in the corner rather than fight! Did they even play thief!!! (Thief 2 was one of the all time best games imo)

I mean, all they had to do was make the same game again, same action just updated graphics, new enemies with better AI, a few new gadgets and maybe a few new game mechanics and it would sell loads.

#outraged

[Thelos]

Fuck yeah Final Fantasy V.



Remember the Black Mage?

Yeah. My entire party consists out of Black Mages now. WHERE ARE YOUR GODS NOW?!

Playing trough this game raises the question why they didn't just keep using the Job system they used in this game in later installments of the franchise. It's by far the most intuitive, easy and fun-to-use; not to mention the most charismatic. I never understood franchises that somehow shy on using their most charismatic elements. There's the argument that the games will become too repetetive - but if the games aren't repetetive, why would you even call them a franchise? Ideally, each installation should be improving on the ones before it in every way imaginable, not revolutionizing the fundamentles literally every other game.

Imagine a Zelda game with different musical cues for opening chests or discovering chests. The fans would revolt. It seems silly on the surface, but you really need consistency in these things in a long-running franchise, lest you lose sight of your soul. If I compare the older pixelated games to the latest ones I barely recognize any common elements. I want a black mage in my Final Fantasy game. Now I've got five.

The music, of course, is fantastic and the game is rather well paced and very well tuned when it comes to balance: I always find myself scurrying along that killer edge of being challenged and dying from time to time, but not frustratingly so; I never feel the game is unfair: you always have enough tools to win in the end, if you manage your resources carefully enough.

V is great because the story is unconveluted and easy to follow and the job system a lot of fun to play with. I am really being caught off guard just how much more enjoyable this game is than its successors. I think it has something to do with the combat and the customization systems being simpler and more fun to experiment with.

Also notable for actually having more female main characters than males. With the only character you can name being male, I can't imagine the whole anime harem thing wasn't an element.

Anyhow, back to adventuring. Maybe I'll turn my team into 4 White Mages next - it's all possible with how easy you can flip jobs. Added hilarity when the chick you've used for healing for an entire dungeon runs out of mana and switches tasks with the heroic tank - switching costumes so that the former is in full plate armor and the latter in a white dress.



Good times.

Also, this is a pretty neat website.

[Quin]

cuhrazyyy the game

[Muzjhath]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/16/simcity-modder-tells-us-offline-regional-play-easily-done/ This was an intresting read.
If it's easy, and comes into existance. I'll want that mod.

[Raene]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/hackers-open-up-offline-play-modding-tools-for-simcity/

Yeah, there's a few mods out there already for offline play.

[Muzjhath]

There are tools out there that open up single city play for offline play.
But those still requier you to first log into EA's servers. JUst that if you DC you won't get kicked off after 20 minutes.

This guy is talking for MP Regions. Which at latst Ysterday the lead at Maxis went out and put wuld be "impossible" to do.

[Raene]

Part of me wishes I liked Simcity and games like it, so that I could follow and understand this controversy in earnest rather than look on from the outside.

Reddit is ablaze with this at the moment and it just means nothing to me.

[Sponsored content]